Author
Topic: Are those practical knots, or not ? (Read 7931 times)

As some pictures of knots, posted initially in the "Theoretical " bowline discussion thread, were deleted by a forced-mistaken-desperate action by me, I re-post the ones that were fortunately saved here, just in case somebody would be interested in them. ( Not much interest was stirred last time, I am afraid...) I was not driven to those knots by randomly tying bowlines ! I had thought that if, somehow, we manage to discover a complex TIB nipping loop, tied on the standing part of an end-of-line loop, that happens to be more stable than the common bowline nipping loop, we could use IT as our nipping loop, so that the "proper" collar will now serve almost exclusively the purpose to secure the tail - and not to stabilize this nipping loop. A collar that has only one main purpose, and is loaded accordingly, is probably better / more effectively used in this purpose. Its strength is not "wasted" in the purpose of stabilizing the nipping loop, a task that this new, more stable nipping loop might achieve by its own. Does this strategy has a point ? I am not sure, of course, about it, not at all! It might be better to have all the separate parts of a knot tangled/interlocked together, so that each one of them can be loaded and bear that load more or less, depending of each other loading. I hope that this thread will not have the sad fate of the other one, and be removed by the Web-administrators after X replies, or Y "length", or Z days/weeks/months/years...Of course, I can not trust them that something like this will not happen AGAIN, can I ? I only wish/hope that the next time a "vote" is cast. the number of votes would be larger than 6...

Don't know. But let's say that 75% of them are practical, and the others are of theoretical interest. Then what?

Then I was obliged/right to post them in this section, and not on the so-called (erronously) "Knot Theory"(?) section...And,because I have not seen them anywhere, ( and neither did you, I suppose...), I was obliged/right to post them, and not keep them, selfishly, in my computer for myself.. I had not done anything else/different, had I ? .

Xarax, that other long thread about the Bowline definitely belongs in the Knot Theory forum. For whatever reason, you place a stigma on the Knot Theory forum. I'm not sure why. Almost everything you post fits squarely within the purpose of the Knot Theory forum, which is "For those who want to get the knot between their teeth and shake it apart, either figuratively, or binarily." Are you ashamed or something? Or do you just want to be in the forum with more activity? (I'm assuming Practical Knots has more activity.)

I personally would prefer to see the Practical Knots described explicitly as "Knots Discussed within the Context of Applications." I would think such a label is obviously implied within the word "Practical", but maybe it's not so obvious (?).

First, there is not a Theoretical knots forum, because there is not, and can be not such thing as a "Theoretical Knot" ! Even the knots studied by mathematics, within Knot Theory, are not "theoretical knots", they are abstract mathematical structures, like the sets, the numbers, the shapes, the groups, the tranformations, etc, of mathematics. Is there a Theoretical Set ? A Theoretical Number ? Do not confuse theory, which is one thing, with its constructs, which is another. What you erroneously describe as a "Theoretical knot", should be better described as a "practical knot, discussed within the context of its structure, its form, its funcion" - or something like this- and not witin the context of a specific aplication or use.( We are assuming we speak about practical knots here, and not decorative knots. For decorative knots, use and application should better be defined in other terms.)

For whatever reason, you place a stigma on the Theoretical Knots forum. I'm not sure why.

I do not place any stigma on the "Knot Theory and Computing" Forum ! I say that it should be named correctly, as "Theory of Practical Knots", or something like that, because "Knot Theory" is something else, as you know. I believe that, unfortunately, there is not any viable theory of Practical knots at the moment, but I would be glad if there will be one, and I would be happy to follow its development as close as I can. I am more interested in such a theory, than in any application or use of Practical knots, because I believe that the tools themselves are more important than the things they help us to do. That is the meaning of OUR title, as "Homo Faber", isnt it ? ( Even if it is now known that other animmals use tools too, and some make those tools, using materials occuring in their natural environment.)

Almost everything you post fits squarely within the purpose of the Theoretical Knots forum.

Assuming that you mean the "Theory of Practical Knots" forum, do you believe that the end-of-line loops shown in this thread should be posted there ? If yes, why ? Please elaborate a little more on this, because I believe that a "new" knot that is simple enough - and not a decorative one- AND it is meant to be / could eventually be, a practical knot, should be posted in the Practical Knots forum. Ar you telling me that those end-of-line loops are decorative knts, or that they willnever be of any practical interest ? Ar you sure about it ? If yes, how do you know in advance which knots would eventually be proven to be of practical use, and which not ?

Do you thnk I am, or I should be ? If yes, it would be an interesting phenmenon, a man being a selfish mazochist, who is shamed for himself but wants things done HIS way ! Are you as good as a psychologist as a knot tyer ?

I personally would prefer to see the Practical Knots described explicitly as "Knots Discussed within the Context of Applications." I would think such a label is obviously implied within the word "Practical", but maybe it's not so obvious (?).

That distinction would be fine for me. From the one hand, a section about "Practical Knots, discussed within the Context of Aplications", and from the other a section about "Practical knots discussed within the Context of their Structure, Form, Function". Do you agree on this ?

P.S. knot4u, let us, please, not be drawn into a new quarel here ! Please do try to ignore any comments of mine that you think they are only rhetoric, and reply to the questions on subjects you think are worth of further examination. I will try to do the same next time, and I beg you to forgive any ill-chosen humourous comments by me. I have already one knot tyer to deal with, It is not wise tactically for me to open a new, second front !

I just miss some description of what practical problems your knots are going to solve. What's the advantage with the specific knot. Why should I use your specific end loop instead of the bowline, double dragon, overhand loop etc.?

I just miss some description of what practical problems your knots are going to solve. What's the advantage with the specific knot. Why should I use your specific end loop instead of the bowline, double dragon, overhand loop etc.?

Hi Hungrir,

Any practical knotting problem has more than one solutions, cab be solved using with more than one knots. It is very difficult to prove that one solution/knot is the optimum for a specific aplixcation. Do not forget that, even if the problem is well defined, and the rope material to be used is decided in advance, the knot tyer is always different ! So, knots that can be easily and securely tied by one knot tyer, because of the dexterity, knowledge and experience he has, might seem defficult to tie, or even be tied wrongly and dangerously, by another knot tyer. Let me say that the secific knot is more secure, and/or is more strong than the bowline. Would you use it becuse I am saying so ? No, of course not. You use what you already know, what you use more often, and is proven to satisfy your needs. Does this mean that you do not want to learnany new knots, you do not want to try different solutions ? If that is the case- what is the case with the mjority of knot users indeed- then you are right, you should not bother to learn but a handful of knots in your life. You are a knot user, an average person that just wants his job done. My posts are not adressed to the average person, but to the knot tyer. A knot tyer knows that there are more ways to skin a cat, and enjoys the different possibilities, In short, he is curious about knots, any knots, and he wishes to learn as many interesting knots as he can. That need of the knots tyers makes me explore the Knotland, and I feel obliged to report my findings in this forum, as soon as I happen to aquire them, so other knot tyers will satisfy the same need. I have recently bought, in a Sotheby s book auction, from the grand children of Ashley, his handwritten personal diary, where he descibes some knots he would publish in the next, second edition of ABoK, had he be gven the chance. ( Unfortunately, he died just a few years after the first edition.) The knots presented in this tread are just copies of this diary ! Are you interested in those knots a little more now ? I think that you do. Would you ask the same question to Ashley, if he was alive, as the questions you asked me about the knots in this thread, that I have copied from his lost-and-found diary ? I doubt it. Because we all are taught to follow rules, to repeat things created by others, to parrot things written in sacred books, by prophets, to search for already known recipes . That is not a bad thing, provided that it is not the only thing it is ! Fortunately, Ashley was a knot tyer, not an average knot user. Assuming that you are a man, and you have the most beutiful wife, who adores you, who is the last year Miss-World, a Nobel prize winner, and a billioner. Would any man in your position stop to look, just look, any other woman that happens to pass by ? If you are a man, you might answer yes...because we are f... liars. If you are a woman - and women know men better than men know themselves - you will answer no. Well, I look at other knots, even if I have the bowline ! And I suggest you do the same, too. It does not make life longer, unfortunately, but much more interesting, and it is a pity if one misses that opportunity.

...is a creation by Korgan, in a now deleted post ( I am not the only one in this forum that is doing desparate things... ) He calls it "the Niptruck". See the last saved picture of the Niptruck, at (1) I have though of the same thing when, I have tried to figure out a bowline-like loop, where the two legs of the collar are absolutely parallel to each other and to a segment of the standing part. This loop/binder makes the sentence "The bowline is a Gleipnir with a ("proper") collar" much more transparent.